Gleanings
Items of interest on faith and culture from around the Internet
The Philosopher and the Ayatollah
Thu 16 Jun 2005 by Peter Edman
Amazing and surprisingly nuanced article in the Boston Globe (hat-tip—ALD) on Michel Foucault’s initial infatuation with the Islamist revolution in Iran of Ayatollah Khomeini.
The article, by Wesley Yang, is titled “The philosopher and the ayatollah: In 1978, Michel Foucault went to Iran as a novice journalist to report on the unfolding revolution. His dispatches — now fully available in translation — shed some light on the illusions of intellectuals in our own time.”
The article is inspired by the publication of Kevin Anderson and Janet Afary’s Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism
Yang offers an interesting balance of appreciation for Foucault’s courageous insights and his ideologically driven blindness, and definitely helps us appreciate the way worldviews or ideologies shape actions. Two quotes from the article follow:
A collection on spirituality vs. religion vs. atheism
Mon 13 Jun 2005 by Peter Edman
I’ve noticed a small wave of articles on faith, religion, and spirituality—which are not synonymous. Several appear to be driven by a recent AP survey on religion.
Items:
Dave Shiflett has an article from 7 June 2005 on National Review Online, “God-Lite Doesn’t Cut It: Americans like a stouter brand.” He discusses findings from his new book, Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity.- Ironically, the same day US News & World Report, 7 June 2005, posts an article on a trend that could be seen as confirming or countering Shiflett’s thesis: “Religion in America: Pumping life into mainline Protestantism” (Hat Tip: Relapsed Catholic -> Church Marketing Sucks -> CT Weblog) discusses how moderate-to-liberal congregations in otherwise-declining denominations are thriving by getting serious about their faith and their tradition.
- And just the day before, Giles Fraser posted a pleasantly insightful editorial in London’s Guardian on a new UK “reality” show focused on the spiritual smorgasbord: “God’s been mugged: Spirituality, the latest subject of reality TV, is religion minus the difficult bits for feckless consumers”
- On the other hand, we have UPI reporter Uwe Siemon-Netto and a March 2005 wire story, “Science, ‘frauds’ trigger a decline in atheism” discussing former atheist Anthony Flew’s defection to theism.
- In line with this last, in light of the TV show mentioned in Dr. Fraser’s commentary, it’s almost refreshing to see Salman Rushdie’s wisful desire to “Just give me that old-time atheism!” (The Toronto Star, May 23 2005).
After Postmodernism in the Arts
Mon 13 Jun 2005 by Peter Edman
Daniel Henninger’s February 18, 2005 “Wonderland” column from OpinionJournal.com was recently brought to my attention. It definitely is worth a read.
“21st Century Art Makes Its Escape From the Toilet: We don’t need Modernism and Post-Modernism anymore.” Artists and art patrons of the world: please lend this man your ears for a few minutes.
What we need is an art, a culture, an aesthetic appropriate to the age in which we live--the 21st century, the Age of the Digital and the Age of September 11. Modern art isn’t it.
Modernism was a reaction to the industrial age or the machine age. It produced Cubism, Stravinsky’s music and James Joyce’s Ulysses (also voted the 20th century’s most important novel by a panel of the Modern Library). Its most important cultural values included discordance, challenge, collision, violation, confusion. This is wholly out of sync with what people want or need in the current age.
He has a suggestion for a positive way forward, and a recognition of and appreciation for the iPod.
Refreshing Candor
Mon 06 Jun 2005 by Peter Edman
Perhaps we are getting to the point where we can actually get back to arguing again. A couple of recent articles indicate a larger trend I think I’m seeing: people are increasingly willing again to go against political and secularist correctness in public. It indicates that the tide may be turning against those who would exclude opposing opinions from the public square by fiat.
First is Terry Teachout’s insightful piece on art and persuasion from In Character, reprinted in the Wall Street Journal, “When Drama Becomes Propaganda: Why is so much political art so awful?” (6 June 2005).
It isn’t just that they feel no responsibility to make arguments that might prove persuasive to those who disagree with them, or at least haven’t yet made up their minds. They no longer acknowledge any responsibility to their audiences. They appear to believe instead that so long as an artist thinks all the right things, he need not go to the trouble to be amusing, subtle or even interesting. All he need do is make his characters say the right things, and he’s entitled to the approval of his enlightened brethren. No one else matters.
European, Not Christian
Wed 01 Jun 2005 by Peter Edman
Jay Tolson at U.S. News & World Report has written an article on the spiritual climate of Europe.
“European, Not Christian: An aggressive secularism sweeps the Continent” (30 May 2005). It looks generally well balanced, including discussion of causes and consequences and alternative spiritualities that are arising in the wake of the decline of organized religion. Jumping off from the Buttiglione debacle and a similar case experienced in Britain by Ruth Kelly, the article’s thesis is expressed here:
While Kelly survived the mini-tempest, her experience captures what many say is the prevailing attitude of European elites toward religion, particularly traditional religion and particularly in the public sphere. From the ban on the wearing of visible religious symbols in French public schools to the refusal of the EU to include specific mention of Christianity’s influence on Europe’s distinctive civilization in its first constitution, a mountain of anecdotal evidence suggests that an aggressive form of secularism--what the British religion writer Karen Armstrong calls “secular fundamentalism” --is afoot in Europe.
“Secular fundamentalism”? I’m a harsh critic of the misuse and recent overuse of the term “fundamentalist,” but Armstrong’s term seems fitting. Perhaps the rejection of the EU constitution by France and the Netherlands will be an opportunity to revisit the issue of the historic contributions of the Christian faith to Europe and moderate some unfortunate excesses.
U.S. Supreme Court Unanimous on Religious Liberty
Wed 01 Jun 2005 by Peter Edman
I’m very pleased to see news of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cutter v. Wilkinson, upholding a section of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") that protects the religious exercise of prisoners.
There is commentary and further information at The Becket Fund.
The Becket Fund drafted and filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in Cutter on behalf of over fifty religious and civil rights organizations, ranging from People for the American Way to the American Center for Law and Justice. Denominational groups on the brief included Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and others.
Useful commentary also from Notre Dame professor Richard Garnett on National Review Online, including a commendation of Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion.
Tradition, Technology, and Wine
Thu 31 Mar 2005 by Peter Edman
An article from Wired News introduces a contentious theme in an approachable way. New technologies often interfere with traditional cultures and belief systems. The case study here is the vineyards of France.
In this case, new biotechnology and vintnery techniques are threatening the market dominance of traditional French vineyards. Interestingly, the development of the technology is driven as much by a new way of looking at wines—a change in worldview even—as it is by new advances in science.
I Beg to Disagree
Tue 22 Mar 2005 by Peter Edman
The eminently sensible columnist and economist Thomas Sowell raises a helpful point in a recent column.
Too many people today act as if no one can honestly disagree with them. If you have a difference of opinion with them, you are considered to be not merely in error but in sin. You are a racist, a homophobe or whatever the villain of the day happens to be.
Disagreements are inevitable whenever there are human beings but we seem to be in an era when the art of disagreeing is vanishing. That is a huge loss because out of disagreements have often come deeper understandings than either side had before confronting each other's arguments.
Oddly, I see this syndrome crop up with people who tend to downplay the reality of ultimate differences between religions (to take an example not at random).
